Comments on: The ‘Old Law’ Myth http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:47:47 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Payday Loan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-4692522 Payday Loan Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:08:36 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-4692522 <strong>Payday Loan</strong> Business Operations Specialists visit Payday-Loan-Place.com when they want quick payday loans in a pressuring situation, or only need a surplus of funds in their wallets . Payday Loan

Business Operations Specialists visit Payday-Loan-Place.com when they want quick payday loans in a pressuring situation, or only need a surplus of funds in their wallets .

]]> By: No Fax Payday Loans http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-4679808 No Fax Payday Loans Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:21:06 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-4679808 <strong>No Fax Payday Loans</strong> Challenge arvel pay day loans for Taxi-Drivers No Fax Payday Loans

Challenge arvel pay day loans for Taxi-Drivers

]]> By: Young Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-4669078 Young Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:33:35 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-4669078 <strong>Young Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked</strong> I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view Young Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

]]> By: Sex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-4658756 Sex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:12:31 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-4658756 <strong>Sex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex</strong> I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view Sex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

]]> By: Free Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend's Hot Mom http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-4506828 Free Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend's Hot Mom Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:41:33 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-4506828 <strong>Free Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend's Hot Mom</strong> I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view Free Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend’s Hot Mom

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

]]> By: Jim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-4436726 Jim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:02:58 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-4436726 <strong>Jim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court</strong> I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view Jim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

]]> By: Think Progress » Specter’s ‘Compromise’ on Warrantless Wiretapping Excuses Bush For Illegal Conduct http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-669654 Think Progress » Specter’s ‘Compromise’ on Warrantless Wiretapping Excuses Bush For Illegal Conduct Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:08:47 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-669654 [...] Specter appears to have received assurances from the White House that, if his bill is passed without changes, Bush would agree to exercise the option and submit the warrantless wiretapping program to the court for a judgment on its constitutionality. This compromise is a sham because it makes optional what Bush is already required to do. Under the FISA law, the administration can wiretap persons inside the U.S. But it is required to demonstrate that the targets are agents of a foreign power, like al Qaeda or their affiliates. [...] [...] Specter appears to have received assurances from the White House that, if his bill is passed without changes, Bush would agree to exercise the option and submit the warrantless wiretapping program to the court for a judgment on its constitutionality. This compromise is a sham because it makes optional what Bush is already required to do. Under the FISA law, the administration can wiretap persons inside the U.S. But it is required to demonstrate that the targets are agents of a foreign power, like al Qaeda or their affiliates. [...]

]]> By: Progressive Prof » Blog Archive » Stealth Cheney http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-449783 Progressive Prof » Blog Archive » Stealth Cheney Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:54:17 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-449783 [...] DeWine’s solution completely overlooks the major problem with Bush’s illegal domestic spying program. The administration has argued that FISA doesn’t apply to its program, and DeWine simply wants to embed that viewpoint into law. By doing so, the DeWine legislation would grant authority to the administration to continue to conduct its program without any legal checks or safeguards on its powers. DeWine should know better. His efforts to reform FISA were disingenuously rejected in 2002 by the Justice Department. The administration clearly has no problem misleading Congress about its program, and DeWine now wants to reward Cheney and other administration officials by giving them a legal blank check. Explore posts in the same categories: Illegal Surveillance [...] [...] DeWine’s solution completely overlooks the major problem with Bush’s illegal domestic spying program. The administration has argued that FISA doesn’t apply to its program, and DeWine simply wants to embed that viewpoint into law. By doing so, the DeWine legislation would grant authority to the administration to continue to conduct its program without any legal checks or safeguards on its powers. DeWine should know better. His efforts to reform FISA were disingenuously rejected in 2002 by the Justice Department. The administration clearly has no problem misleading Congress about its program, and DeWine now wants to reward Cheney and other administration officials by giving them a legal blank check. Explore posts in the same categories: Illegal Surveillance [...]

]]> By: Think Progress » With Attention Focused Elsewhere, Cheney Wages Silent Defense of NSA Wiretapping http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-448780 Think Progress » With Attention Focused Elsewhere, Cheney Wages Silent Defense of NSA Wiretapping Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:15:06 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-448780 [...] DeWine’s solution completely overlooks the major problem with Bush’s illegal domestic spying program. The administration has argued that FISA doesn’t apply to its program, and DeWine simply wants to embed that viewpoint into law. By doing so, the DeWine legislation would grant authority to the administration to continue to conduct its program without any legal checks or safeguards on its powers. [...] [...] DeWine’s solution completely overlooks the major problem with Bush’s illegal domestic spying program. The administration has argued that FISA doesn’t apply to its program, and DeWine simply wants to embed that viewpoint into law. By doing so, the DeWine legislation would grant authority to the administration to continue to conduct its program without any legal checks or safeguards on its powers. [...]

]]> By: Mr. Evil http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-448340 Mr. Evil Wed, 15 Feb 2006 04:34:51 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-448340 Speaking of tools, George, go look in the mirror! Speaking of tools, George, go look in the mirror!

]]> By: THE BLUE SPEAR » Blog Archive » The ‘Old Law’ Myth http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-443644 THE BLUE SPEAR » Blog Archive » The ‘Old Law’ Myth Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:27:50 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-443644 [...] Think Progress has the rest. [...] [...] Think Progress has the rest. [...]

]]> By: RemoveBush http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-442110 RemoveBush Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:42:26 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-442110 Why IRI, are you looking to slurp some of the man juice? Why IRI, are you looking to slurp some of the man juice?

]]> By: I-RIGHT-I http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-442039 I-RIGHT-I Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:30:04 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-442039 sure they do pumpkin. That’s the job of the judiciary. I know it seems complicated, being a grown up concept and all, but that’s the way the government works pumpkin. Comment by RightPunch Homosexual? sure they do pumpkin. That’s the job of the judiciary. I know it seems complicated, being a grown up concept and all, but that’s the way the government works pumpkin.

Comment by RightPunch

Homosexual?

]]> By: RemoveBush http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-441637 RemoveBush Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:49:39 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-441637 BSR - <strong>NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN NOT OR SHOULD NOT LISTEN TO FOREIGN INTELLIGANCE</strong>. What part of Domestic Spying do you not understand. GEEZE. This criminal is listening to Citizens. Quakers, and many others. So now the quakers are terrorists? This is the problem. I'll go for a vote as long as the nation votes, not the criminally run Republican Congres. If your willing to hold a special vote by the country, then I'm all for it. I will bet that more people will vote to withdraw the troops, to a place that they will not be attacked everyday and make Iraq stand up for themselves. If your willing to do that, THEN I'M ALL FOR IT! BSR – NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN NOT OR SHOULD NOT LISTEN TO FOREIGN INTELLIGANCE. What part of Domestic Spying do you not understand. GEEZE. This criminal is listening to Citizens. Quakers, and many others. So now the quakers are terrorists? This is the problem.

I’ll go for a vote as long as the nation votes, not the criminally run Republican Congres. If your willing to hold a special vote by the country, then I’m all for it. I will bet that more people will vote to withdraw the troops, to a place that they will not be attacked everyday and make Iraq stand up for themselves.

If your willing to do that, THEN I’M ALL FOR IT!

]]> By: Blue State Red http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-441617 Blue State Red Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:41:41 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-441617 <em>Do you not understand that if Congress can control the military and essentially force the president to pull troops out by not funding the military.</em> Okay, let's have a vote on that question. It wouldn't get a single vote, except maybe for Cynthia McKinney's and Barbara Lee's. The point is, as long as our troops are deployed in the theater of combat, the President has plenary powers to engage in the fundamental incidents of war. That includes learning when and where the enemy plans to strike by directing the eyes and ears of our intelligence resources to conduct surveillance of enemy communcations. Congress and the Judiciary don't get to micromanage such tactical decisions, no matter how much huffing and puffing they do on the nightly news. Do you not understand that if Congress can control the military and essentially force the president to pull troops out by not funding the military.

Okay, let’s have a vote on that question. It wouldn’t get a single vote, except maybe for Cynthia McKinney’s and Barbara Lee’s.

The point is, as long as our troops are deployed in the theater of combat, the President has plenary powers to engage in the fundamental incidents of war. That includes learning when and where the enemy plans to strike by directing the eyes and ears of our intelligence resources to conduct surveillance of enemy communcations. Congress and the Judiciary don’t get to micromanage such tactical decisions, no matter how much huffing and puffing they do on the nightly news.

]]> By: RemoveBush http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-441606 RemoveBush Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:26:42 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-441606 OK BSR - Give up your Civil Rights. I suggest that you join the military, since you obviously have not served, then perhaps you might realize the error of your ways. I'm not discussing this with you anymore as you don't seem to understand the Constitution. I can't help it, but one last comment. "For example, it is well known that the President could have ordered the shoot-down of United Flight 93 if the passengers had not caused their plane to crash. He had the power, as comander in chief, to order the military to shoot down a plane full of civilians to protect the government from further attack." No he did not, but in an event that many peoples lives are in immediate danger, i.e. planes being flown into buildings by the government, then of course he could shoot down the plane. However, he can't just order a solder to shoot an American citizen for crossing the street not in a cross walk. "The same is true of electronic surveillance of enemy communications. The President has the power to spy on our enemies in a time of war, to learn their plans, and to thwart them if possible. Such surveillance has a military purpose when it is directed at an enemy who has declared war and attacked us. This is why Article II, In Re Sealed Case, the AUMF and Hamdi, together with Congress’ inaction since 2002, all come together to support the President in this case." NO NO NO. The president does not have that power. Hence the FISA law. WE ARE NOT AT WAR. If you can show me the DECLARATION OF WAR, then I would agree that the president does in fact have more power. However, he was given the authorization to use the military to go after the terrorists. Do you not understand that if Congress can control the military and essentially force the president to pull troops out by not funding the military. So if he has such great power to do what every he desires, then why can't he just finance the war without Congress? Congress controls more of the military than the president. Congress also makes the rules that the military MUST follow: Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). So if the president is so powerful, then why is it that he can't tell the military how they will conduct themselves? Hamdi, <strong>ONCE AGAIN</strong> is regarding detaining an American on a battle field. Not wiretapping Domesticly in the US. Now go and learn the constitution. OK BSR – Give up your Civil Rights. I suggest that you join the military, since you obviously have not served, then perhaps you might realize the error of your ways.

I’m not discussing this with you anymore as you don’t seem to understand the Constitution.

I can’t help it, but one last comment.

“For example, it is well known that the President could have ordered the shoot-down of United Flight 93 if the passengers had not caused their plane to crash. He had the power, as comander in chief, to order the military to shoot down a plane full of civilians to protect the government from further attack.”

No he did not, but in an event that many peoples lives are in immediate danger, i.e. planes being flown into buildings by the government, then of course he could shoot down the plane. However, he can’t just order a solder to shoot an American citizen for crossing the street not in a cross walk.

“The same is true of electronic surveillance of enemy communications. The President has the power to spy on our enemies in a time of war, to learn their plans, and to thwart them if possible. Such surveillance has a military purpose when it is directed at an enemy who has declared war and attacked us. This is why Article II, In Re Sealed Case, the AUMF and Hamdi, together with Congress’ inaction since 2002, all come together to support the President in this case.”

NO NO NO. The president does not have that power. Hence the FISA law. WE ARE NOT AT WAR. If you can show me the DECLARATION OF WAR, then I would agree that the president does in fact have more power. However, he was given the authorization to use the military to go after the terrorists. Do you not understand that if Congress can control the military and essentially force the president to pull troops out by not funding the military. So if he has such great power to do what every he desires, then why can’t he just finance the war without Congress? Congress controls more of the military than the president. Congress also makes the rules that the military MUST follow: Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). So if the president is so powerful, then why is it that he can’t tell the military how they will conduct themselves?

Hamdi, ONCE AGAIN is regarding detaining an American on a battle field. Not wiretapping Domesticly in the US.

Now go and learn the constitution.

]]> By: Blue State Red http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-441580 Blue State Red Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:10:44 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-441580 <em>The Commander in cheif is of the military. Then he cannot order the military to shoot a civilian.</em> Actually, he can, if the circumstances call for it. For example, it is well known that the President could have ordered the shoot-down of United Flight 93 if the passengers had not caused their plane to crash. He had the power, as comander in chief, to order the military to shoot down a plane full of civilians to protect the government from further attack. And he didn't need approval from Congress or the Judiciary to do so. That's because he has plenary powers as commander in chief. The same is true of electronic surveillance of enemy communications. The President has the power to spy on our enemies in a time of war, to learn their plans, and to thwart them if possible. Such surveillance has a military purpose when it is directed at an enemy who has declared war and attacked us. This is why Article II, <em>In Re Sealed Case</em>, the AUMF and <em>Hamdi</em>, together with Congress' inaction since 2002, all come together to support the President in this case. There is one way to test all of this, of course: Let's have an up-or-down vote on it. How about a vote on the following joint resolution of Congress: <em><strong>Resolved, it is the sense of the Congress that the President shall immediately cease and desist from any and all warrantless electronic surveillance, and shall not conduct any electronic surveillance of any kind without a warrant issued upon probable cause.</strong></em> Let's get everyone on the record on this issue. The Commander in cheif is of the military. Then he cannot order the military to shoot a civilian.

Actually, he can, if the circumstances call for it. For example, it is well known that the President could have ordered the shoot-down of United Flight 93 if the passengers had not caused their plane to crash. He had the power, as comander in chief, to order the military to shoot down a plane full of civilians to protect the government from further attack. And he didn’t need approval from Congress or the Judiciary to do so. That’s because he has plenary powers as commander in chief.

The same is true of electronic surveillance of enemy communications. The President has the power to spy on our enemies in a time of war, to learn their plans, and to thwart them if possible. Such surveillance has a military purpose when it is directed at an enemy who has declared war and attacked us. This is why Article II, In Re Sealed Case, the AUMF and Hamdi, together with Congress’ inaction since 2002, all come together to support the President in this case.

There is one way to test all of this, of course: Let’s have an up-or-down vote on it. How about a vote on the following joint resolution of Congress: Resolved, it is the sense of the Congress that the President shall immediately cease and desist from any and all warrantless electronic surveillance, and shall not conduct any electronic surveillance of any kind without a warrant issued upon probable cause. Let’s get everyone on the record on this issue.

]]> By: Jay Randal http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-441564 Jay Randal Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:03:28 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-441564 Post 114 > spoken like a true hard core fascist I-Right-I, but you do NOT beat up anybody on here > they beat you up! Post 114 > spoken like a true hard core fascist I-Right-I, but you do NOT beat up anybody on here > they beat you up!

]]> By: I-RIGHT-I http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-441513 I-RIGHT-I Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:45:15 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-441513 I hope I-Right-I is on the NSA wiretap list > lol. They would dig up lots of dirt on him to blackmail him to continue humping for Bush on here > lol. Cindy Sheehan has a right to her views > she might be elected Senator for California next November! Comment by Jay Randal Cindy Sheehan has shit and fallen back into it. She won't even be a footnote to a footnote. As for me, I'm sure I'm tapped but it's only because I know they're stealing my material. They don't have to do a thing to get me to beat up on you crack babies on Think Communist. I hope I-Right-I is on the NSA wiretap list > lol.
They would dig up lots of dirt on him to blackmail him to continue humping for Bush on here > lol.

Cindy Sheehan has a right to her views > she might be elected Senator for California next November!

Comment by Jay Randal

Cindy Sheehan has shit and fallen back into it. She won’t even be a footnote to a footnote. As for me, I’m sure I’m tapped but it’s only because I know they’re stealing my material. They don’t have to do a thing to get me to beat up on you crack babies on Think Communist.

]]> By: Jack Hicks http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/comment-page-3/#comment-441503 Jack Hicks Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:42:48 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/07/the-old-law-myth/#comment-441503 Its obvious, Bush is spying on people. The FISA court probably denied some requests even though the quantum of proof is less than probable cause. I saw the craven Jane Harman whining on the tube this afternoon. Her and others like her are the reason there is not more of an outrage. Rockefeller should testify before the judiciary or the foreign relations committee. He has a letter he wrote complaining about the program. If he's afraid to do that he should jump in Bush's pocket. He could join everyone else who want to trade their freedom for protection from the terrorists. Its obvious, Bush is spying on people. The FISA court probably denied some requests even though the quantum of proof is less than probable cause. I saw the craven Jane Harman whining on the tube this afternoon. Her and others like her are the reason there is not more of an outrage. Rockefeller should testify before the judiciary or the foreign relations committee. He has a letter he wrote complaining about the program. If he’s afraid to do that he should jump in Bush’s pocket. He could join everyone else who want to trade their freedom for protection from the terrorists.

]]>